COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Annunziata, Bumgardner and Frank 

BARBARA ANN THACKER CATRON 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY 

v. Record No. 1321-00-3 JUDGE RUDOLPH BUMGARDNER, III 

 FEBRUARY 6, 2001 

LARRY DOUGLAS CATRON 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF SCOTT COUNTY 

William C. Fugate, Judge 

 (John H. Qualls, on brief), for appellant. 

Appellant submitting on brief. 

 (Roderick St. Martin; Coleman & St. Martin, 

on brief), for appellee. Appellee submitting 

on brief. 

 

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not 

designated for publication.

The trial court granted Larry D. Catron a divorce on the 

grounds of adultery. Barbara Ann Catron contends the evidence 

did not support a finding of adultery. We conclude credible 

evidence supported that finding. 

On appeal, we view the evidence in the light most favorable 

to the husband, the prevailing party below. Gasque v. Mooers 

Motor Car Co., 227 Va. 154, 157, 313 S.E.2d 384, 387 (1984). So 

viewed, the parties married in 1964 and separated in 1995, but 

the relationship began to deteriorate in 1989. The wife started 

drinking heavily, resulting in three driving under the influence 
and three shoplifting convictions. She received inpatient 

alcohol treatment and served time in jail as well. 

The wife met Hobart Scism through her husband who worked 

with Scism. The first indication that they had developed a 

relationship came when the husband discovered the letters that 

Scism had written her while she was in jail in 1993. After the 

wife moved to a separate bedroom in June 1994, the husband found 

a photograph of Scism under her mattress. When the parties 

separated in January 1995, the husband moved out of the marital 

residence. Later, the husband returned to the marital residence 

while the wife was in jail. He found a box of photographs which 

he introduced to prove the wife committed adultery with Scism in 

September 1994 and in October 1995. 

While the photographs do not depict the two engaged in the 

act, they showed the wife on several different occasions posed 

for the pictures in Scism's bedroom. In the photographs she was 

completely unclothed on one occasion and only in her underwear 

on the other occasions. The wife testified extensively about 

the photographs. She gave conflicting statements about who took 

the pictures and when and where they were taken. None of her 

explanations comported with the details revealed in the 

photographs. 

 The wife contends the photographs described suspicious 

circumstances but are not sufficient to prove adultery in the 

face of unrefuted denials by her and Scism. The wife's argument 

- 2 -
relies heavily on her denial that she and Scism did not have 

sexual relations. However, her testimony is not proof if it is 

not credible. 

"[W]e are not required to believe that which we know to be 

inherently incredible or contrary to human experience or to 

usual behavior." Willis v. Commonwealth, 218 Va. 560, 564, 238 

S.E.2d 811, 813 (1977) (citation omitted). The fact finder 

determines whether evidence is unclear, unreasonable, or false. 

Evidence is incredible if it is "'so manifestly false that 

reasonable men ought not to believe it, or it must be shown to 

be false by objects or things [such as photographs] as to the 

explanation and meaning of which reasonable men should not 

differ.'" Milk Comm. of Virginia v. Safeway Stores, 199 Va. 

837, 841, 102 S.E.2d 332, 335 (1958) (quoting Daniels v. 

Transfer Co., 196 Va. 537, 544, 84 S.E.2d 528, 532 (1954)). 

 Even though the wife's denials are unrefuted by direct 

evidence, they are refuted by circumstantial evidence. In this 

case, we are privileged to read the record as the trial court 

did. Higgins v. Higgins, 205 Va. 324, 330, 136 S.E.2d 793, 797 

(1964). The wife repeatedly changed her story regarding the 

incriminating photographs. Her statements were internally 

self-contradictory and do not permit reconciliation of the 

differences. Her testimony was even contradicted in part by 

Scism's testimony. The wife's testimony does not provide a 

believable explanation for the photographs. The trial court 

- 3 -
could conclude the explanations were false. Having found that 

she was untruthful in that testimony, the trial court was free 

to discard her statements denying an affair with Scism. Upon 

finding a false denial, the court could infer she committed the 

act. Black v. Commonwealth, 222 Va. 838, 842, 284 S.E.2d 608, 

610 (1981) (false statements may be probative of guilt). 

 "In order to warrant a decree for divorce on the ground of 

adultery, the burden rests upon the complainant to make out his 

case by such clear, strong and convincing evidence as to carry 

conviction to the judicial mind." Coe v. Coe, 225 Va. 616, 622, 

303 S.E.2d 923, 927 (1983); Dooley v. Dooley, 222 Va. 240, 

245-46, 278 S.E.2d 865, 868 (1981); Painter v. Painter, 215 Va. 

418, 420, 211 S.E.2d 37, 38 (1975); Haskins v. Haskins, 188 Va. 

525, 530-31, 50 S.E.2d 437, 439 (1948). 

The trial court determines issues of credibility and weight 

of the evidence. The photographs, coupled with the wife's 

incredible explanations, and the reasonable inferences fairly 

deducible describe more than suspicious circumstances. We have 

reviewed the original photographs and the testimony. "We cannot 

escape the conclusion, from the cold print of the record, that 

[the wife] has been guilty of infidelity. Common sense and the 

common experience of men are used as our guide. '[C]redulity 

must not be stretched to the breaking point.'" Higgins, 205 Va. 

at 328, 136 S.E.2d at 796 (citation omitted). 

- 4 -
We conclude the circumstantial evidence permits a finding 

of adultery. Accordingly, we affirm. 

 Affirmed.

- 5 -